The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Now I won't actually give you "the last 100 years" because we've only been in the satellite business for a somewhere around 50 years, and it is only through that time that we've had anything approaching consistent global "views" of surface temperatures. But certainly in the last 50 years the science holds up.

Oh, and incidentally, temperature volatility has been much lower than average too -- which is interesting, because that's not what you'd expect from the media screaming about "extreme" weather events.

The article goes on to put forward a plausible explanation for the lack of any reporting on this: The media and public "sale" of human-caused warming is "too important" to bother with minor little things.

Like the truth, for instance.

I've long pointed out in these pages the idiocy put forward by the "glo-bull warming" screamers, 99.9% of whom have spent exactly zero time looking at the data, looking at the alleged science for themselves and even less time thinking about the percentage of greenhouse gas that we actually emit compared against the whole. Those lines of inquiry, thought and reporting absolutely verboten in the media and, if you attempt to go there as a scientist, you quickly find there's no funding -- for anything you want to do or investigate, ever again.

In other words you are on an immediate starvation mission: Yours.

We shall see if this trend continues. If it does, and I suspect it well might, global average surface temperatures will be below 1980s levels by the end of the year.

Think about that folks -- 30+ years of so-called "human, irreversible, catastrophic" warming gone in three years time.

That may or may not inform the future. It is a 3SD event, which makes it highly unusual. Not ridiculously so (that's in the 4 and 5-SD category) but the existing pattern, thus far, is in the 3SD category -- and you'd think, with something that's highly unusual it would get a lot of press ink.

You'd be wrong, because it's akin to claiming that the Earth rotates around the Sun, not the other way around -- in the time of Galileo, and "heretics" (like Galileo) must be puuuuunished for the "greater scam", er, "greater good."

A recent action by some states to "hold accountable" automakers that fail to meet CAFE fleet requirements has just led to a major strategy shift in Ford, and it's bad for Americans.

Trump's EPA wants to roll back some of those requirements -- which IMO are arguably impossible to meet without forcing a significant part of the fleet onto other than actual fuel. In other words if you have a fleet in which you sell a lot of electric cars then the fact that the pollution is shoved off somewhere else helps your numbers on a fleet-average basis.

This has resulted from an insane media and greenie-led screamfest that we're all gonna die from CO2 emissions. Then there is the farm lobby that wants to force higher ethanol content, never mind that ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline, so their claims that this will "improve" mileage are crap -- the more ethanol in the fuel the lower the mileage per gallon of fuel consumed the vehicle produces. That's physics *******s; you can't manufacture BTUs out of thin air!

Further, what happens if nobody wants to buy said electric cars?

You're done; the fines for failure to meet the requirements across the entire fleet "as sold" can be ridiculous.

Ford has now responded to this. They'll make only trucks and SUVs, which have lower requirements, plus one performance model (the Mustang.)

The lowly sedan and hatchbacks are gone.

You can't force a company to build something and if you get punitive enough they'll stick up the middle finger and leave that segment of the market -- which is exactly what Ford has announced.

Doing so will not only screw consumers it will screw the environment too.

See, trucks and SUVs have a (much) higher profit margin. This means you pay more and get less. The company gets more, you spend more, you get less.

What's worse is that if you buy a truck instead of a sedan the environment gets screwed at the same time. A truck or SUV inherently has a higher cD (coefficient of Drag) because it has a greater frontal area than a sedan. It thus achieves fewer miles per gallon all other things being equal. If it's a pickup truck then it's even worse because the joint between the bed and cab is a discontinuous point for airflow and results in turbulence, further increasing drag. And guess who pays for the extra fuel? The consumer.

So the screamfest has managed to result in both the environment and the consumer getting screwed. The consumer gets less choice, higher cost both in acquisition and operating expense and the environment gets hosed too because instead of 35mpg the truck only gets 25mpg to perform the same job.

People have the right to choose such a trade-off -- or at least they should. But when you stick your big toe on the scale, as the government has done here, what winds up happening is that the choice gets made for you and you as a consumer get screwed because at some point firms say "the Hell with this garbage" and exit that line of business.

Where did the sub-$20,000 decently-equipped sedan go that can obtain nearly 40mpg on the highway?

Our government murdered it and the greenies are cheering on destruction to both your wallet and the environment.